This study explores the ethical perceptions of employees in the financial industry. Focusing on the high frequency trading (HFT) industry, it analyses a series of interviews with HFT employees (managers, computer programmers and traders). It shows that regulations and firm rules profoundly affect HFT practices. However, they do not provide employees with answers for their ethical questions. To judge the ethicality of HFT, employees choose reference stakeholder groups and assess the way HFT impacts them. The perception that HFT has a positive effect on stakeholder groups is associated with moral satisfaction, whereas the perception that it has a negative effect is related to emotional detachment, sense of meaninglessness and turnover intent. The high variance in employees’ choices of stakeholder reference groups emphasizes the subjectivity and uncertainty that HFT ethicality entails. Therefore, this study suggests that the financial industry may lack moral leadership. It makes empirical and theoretical contributions to the ‘business ethics as practice’ theory and examines management and regulatory applications.

PurposePredatory trading is a stock market trading technique in which certain market participants exploit information about other market participants' need to trade. Predatory trading often harms others. Hence, this paper examines the determinants and effects of financial practitioners' and lay people's judgments of predatory trading. Specifically, it investigates how the public availability and reliability of the exploited information affect their ethics and legality judgments and how the latter influence their behavioral intentions and regulation support.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted two scenario judgment studies. In the first study, participants were financial practitioners, and in the second – lay people.FindingsPractitioners often judge predatory trading to be ethical. Practitioners and lay people incorporate in their ethics and legality judgments the public availability of the exploited information but tend to discount the legal reliability criterion. Lay people justify their ethics judgments using harm, legal or profit maximization principles. Practitioners' intentions to engage in predatory trading and lay people's intentions to let predatory fund managers invest their money depend on their judgments, which influence their regulation support.Originality/valueThis paper is the first to explore people's judgments of predatory trading. It highlights that despite the harm that predatory trading involves, practitioners often judge it to be ethical. Although law tends to lag behind financial innovation, people base their judgments and hence also behavioral intentions on their interpretation of the regulation. Hence, it reveals a dark aspect of the relationship between ethics and legality judgments.

It has been argued that traders use their natural sensitivity to the fractal properties of price graphs to assess risk and that they are better able to do this when given price change as well as price level information. This approach implies that risk assessments should be higher when the Hurst exponents are lower, that this relationship should be stronger in the presence of price change information and that risk assessment should depend more strongly on the Hurst exponent than on the standard deviation of the series. Participants in Experiment 1 decided which of two assets was riskier by inspecting graphs of their price series. Graphs with lower Hurst exponents were selected only by those who were less emotionally stable and hence more sensitive to risk. However, when both price series and price change series were presented, the assets with lower Hurst exponents were selected by all participants. In a second experiment, participants were given both price level and price change series for a number of assets and rated the risk of trading in each one. Ratings depended more strongly on Hurst exponents than on other measures of volatility. They also depended on indicators of potential loss. Human risk assessment deviates from the way that risk is measured in modern finance theory: it requires integration of information relevant to both uncertainty and loss aversion, thereby imposing high attentional demands on traders. These demands may impair risk assessment but they can be eased by adding displays of price change information.

Consumers' engagement in morally-questionable behaviors poses a serious threat to firms. To further the understanding of consumers' behavior, this study explores the association and conflicts between their ethical and legal judgments. In addition, it examines the way consumers' judgments depend on their mind-sets and the legal liability criterion of action (activity). In two experiments, participants were asked to judge the ethicality and legality of consumers' morally-questionable behaviors. Behavior activity and participants' mind-sets were manipulated. The results show that consumers are more likely to judge a behavior to be legal when they consider it ethical than when they consider it unethical. Nevertheless, conflicts between ethical and legal judgments are prevalent. Furthermore, ethical judgments, legal judgments, and the occurrence of conflicts between them depend on activity and on consumers' mind-sets. Finally, consumers report uncertainty about the ethicality and legality of a wide range of morally-questionable behaviors. Thus, the results paint a picture of individuals who perceive the law to be often beyond their reach or in conflict with their ethical principles. They portray both ethical and legal judgments as dynamically-changing, subjective, and context-dependent. Theoretical contribution and business applications are discussed.

No abstract